'Interconnectedness, Multiplexity and the Global Student: The Role of Blogging and Micro Blogging in Opening Students’ Horizons' by Kate Galloway, Kristoffer Greaves and Melissa Castan in (2012) 20
Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association 177-188
comments that
The concepts of interconnectedness and multiplexity resonate globally in contemporary higher education, legal practice, and in citizens’ social and economic experience, where engagement takes place daily over distances mediated by information and communications technology. meanwhile, literature regarding student transition identifies student engagement as a key to their retention – yet Australia’s universities are struggling to compete with our students’ employment and caring obligations. Is it possible for lecturers to retain an engaging presence with our students who are more likely than ever before to be distant from campus? How might we provide opportunity and experience to our students, beyond their own community and campus? Is it possible, or even desirable, for us to compete with texting, facebook and other social media used by our students within and without the physical classroom? In this paper, the authors explore the world of blogging and micro blogging (twitter) as a means of mediating engagement with students, lawyers, academics and other interested and interesting people around the world. Through the use of auto-ethnographic case studies of their own experiences with blogging and micro blogging tools, the authors propose that far from being a distraction from student learning, these tools have the potential to open up an international professional collaborative space beyond the physical classroom, for both academics and our students, from their first year experience through to practical legal training and continuing professional development.
They argue that
Our respective (and collective) experience on Twitter and blogging is borne out by the literature
on social media in higher education. While there is some evidence that Facebook is regarded by
students as a social space, differentiated from the learning environment, there is a growing
body of literature supporting the use of Web 2.0 technologies generally in an educational
context. Naturally, the considerations for using these tools as a teaching medium are similar to
using other forms of ICT as a teaching medium. The medium is not the message, and it is only
used to facilitate teaching and learning.
In the contemporary higher education context, the role of the academic as teacher has become
more of a facilitator of student learning than the resident expert. While social engagement
between student and academic via social media may not be attractive to students, the blurred
boundaries between teacher and learner such as those we have observed, and the extended
collegiate network available via Web 2.0 technologies including Twitter and blogging, do
facilitate a less formal learning environment. This environment could be harnessed within the
classroom, but in particular as we have observed it, most effectively as an adjunct to support
student learning and connectedness.
Such an environment whether formal or informal, has been shown to foster collaboration
skills in student cohorts – again, with multiple possible networks. Collaboration is recognised
as a vital (indeed, threshold) skill for law graduates though it has sometimes been a challenge
to incorporate and assess in the classroom, particularly in the law curriculum. The evidence
concerning social media as a means of fostering collaboration suggests this tool might usefully be
incorporated into the law curriculum to facilitate not just student engagement, but collaboration
also.
Importantly however, use of these tools needs to start ‘at home’ and it is challenging indeed
to consider how an academic could incorporate these tools into instructional design, or facilitate
student use without themselves having experience in the media. The first step would be to set
up a Twitter account. Relevantly, consider whether this will be a personal or professional
account (or a combination). It is of course possible to have more than one account. Consider
also the risks, and legal and professional ethics consequences of this form of engagement
with students and others. One might flippantly say there is only one rule on social media,
‘Act Professionally’, however it is worth investigating in more detail what is reasonable and
appropriate for your workplace.
Becoming globally connected through Twitter to: exchange, discuss, or collaborate on ideas
takes only a little effort and time. Through Twitter it is possible to connect to other students,
teachers, researchers and academics with a range of experience and expertise living and working
in a variety of circumstances. For example:
- Investigate the use of Twitter hash tags and lists and think about how these can be used
as teaching and learning or research tools, investigating what established users are doing
with these tools.
- Consider using a unique hash tag for your class group, for example #adminlaw101, and
instruct students to include the hash tag in their Tweets around the class topic.
- Some academics use Twitter as a way of making announcements, or posting leads to
current developments relevant to the class topic (in addition to, or in support of the online
learning management system).
If embedding Twitter into subject design, existing literature concerning the use of computer-mediated
discussions in teaching may assist. This includes the instruction (and the ground rules)
involving Twitter. In particular, see substantial literature around the community of inquiry
framework approach to online discussions.
Most learning management systems incorporate a blog that can be used in subject design
to promote student learning, however based on our own experience, blogging independently
of the formal curriculum has proved an excellent way to understand how this medium can be
incorporated into instructional design. Our own blogging demonstrates to students how this
form of expression can be undertaken.
There are however many scholarly legal blogs available to showcase almost every legal
topic to students as a means of connecting students with a wider world of discipline knowledge
and evidence of applied legal thinking. As with Twitter, such blogs can be linked via the
learning management system and students can follow these as they see fit, contributing to
students developing their own personal learning environment.
'A critique of the deep and surface approaches to learning model' by Peter Howie and Richard Bagnall in (2013) 18(4)
Teaching In Higher Education offers a provocative critique of the hegemonic 'deep learning' model, commenting
This paper is a critical analysis of Biggs’s deep and surface approaches to learning
model, which is prominent in the higher education and tertiary learning fields.
The paper reflects on the model’s origins and the contextual pressures of the
educational landscape extant at that time. It is argued that these pressures have
led to a demonstrable lack of serious critique of the model, which has truncated
the model’s development, leaving it underdeveloped. There are significant
problems with the model in the areas of supporting evidence, imprecise
conceptualisation, ambiguous language, circularity, and a lack of definition of
the underlying structure of deep and surface approaches to learning.
They note that Bigg's model (articulated for example in Biggs and Tang) argues
that there are two ways by which students approach
their learning at university: a deep approach and a surface
approach. A deep approach to learning is seen by Biggs as the preferred approach
and is of practical interest to teaching institutions, academics, educators, and
researchers who, wanting the best learning outcomes for their students, develop
strategies to assist students to use a deep approach to learning when studying their
courses. A deep approach is expected to ensure that a student has a more
comprehensive grasp of the subject being studied. The difference is expected to be
expressed in a higher standard of tertiary student learning outcomes evidenced by
written materials, formal evaluations and assessments, formal and informal
discussions, presentations, and such like. ...
Biggs suggests that students using a surface approach to learning end up using
the memorisation of facts as a substitute for understanding, padding their writing
with quotes and facts to make it seem more substantial than it is, listing points of
theory instead of crafting arguments or relating these points to one another, and that
they are unlikely to check original sources, relying instead on others’ interpretations
of original sources (Biggs and Tang 2007, 23).
Biggs suggests that there are many factors that encourage students to use a
surface approach to learning. Chief amongst these are: an intention to only achieve
minimal pass marks; allowing non-academic priorities to take precedence; lack of
time, possibly due to a high workload; misunderstanding requirements of a course or
course assessments; a cynical view of education, exemplified in statements such as
that ‘It’s only a piece of paper’; high anxiety about passing and workload; and
genuine inability (Biggs and Tang 2007, 23).
Biggs also suggests that there are factors involved from the teacher’s side that can
predispose a student towards a surface approach to learning. These are: teaching
piecemeal content, rather than the underlying structure of ideas and subjects;
assessing mainly for memorising facts; teaching in a way that is cynical about the
subject or the ‘limited’ capacity of students to do well; providing insufficient time by
overloading students; and creating undue anxiety in students about their prospects.
The interaction of these student and teacher factors increases the likelihood of a
student using a surface approach to learning. ...
A deep approach to learning is defined by Biggs as an approach whereby students
engage meaningfully with the subject matter and treat the course content as
something worthy of their taking the time to get to know and understand (Biggs and
Tang 2007). Biggs suggests that, as a consequence of treating the subject matter
meaningfully, a student uses a deep approach to learning and thus uses the
appropriate higher cognitive activity, which is what is required to work with the
material. He relates the deep approach to learning to the motivations and intrinsic
desires of the student, claiming that ‘When students feel this need-to-know, they
automatically try to focus on underlying meanings, on main ideas, themes, principles
or successful applications’ (Biggs and Tang 2007, 24). Hence, students are said to
adopt a deep approach to learning, when they are focusing in their learning on the
underlying meaning, main ideas, themes, principles and successful applications of
their course of study. According to Biggs, while this leads students to gather details
similar to those sought in a surface approach to learning, the student uses a deep
approach to learning in trying to understand the big picture or the underlying
knowledge structure that these same details fit within, and in trying to ascertain how
the details relate to one another.
A deep approach to learning typically has students feeling a positive regard for
the subject matter with which they are engaged and, as they engage with it, having
feelings of challenge, exhilaration, interest, pleasure and importance in relation to it. It is more likely to be adopted by students if they have the necessary level of intention
to engage meaningfully and appropriately with the subject matter before they begin
their study. This may arise from a student’s own innate curiosity or from an act of
will related to a determination to do well. A deep approach to learning is also more
likely to be used if a student has appropriate background knowledge, a capacity to
work at a high cognitive level, and a preference for working conceptually rather than
with disconnected detail.
Biggs also suggests that there are teaching factors involved that can predispose a
student towards a deep approach to learning. Chief among these are: teaching to
bring out the big picture or underlying structure of the subject matter, along with the
interrelationships of the parts; teaching to get active responses rather than passive
responses from students; teaching to build on what students already know and
assuming that they already know a lot; engaging students’ misconceptions directly
while teaching; assessing for understanding of underlying structure, rather than facts
only; creating a positive working atmosphere; emphasising depth rather than breadth
of learning; and ‘practising what they preach’ (Biggs and Tang 2007, 25).
According to Biggs, the interplay of these student factors and the factors teachers
employ in their work, increases the likelihood of a student using either a deep or a
surface approach to learning.
The authors conclude
It is clear from the literature, that Biggs’s model of deep and surface approaches to
learning model is well regarded and that there is a wide range of academics and
teachers making ongoing attempts to apply it, work with the ideas it generates and
incorporate it into other models. However, without the much-needed scholarly
theorisation, research and critical debate into what actually constitutes these deep
and surface approaches to learning, and what ‘deep’ and ‘surface’ actually mean
when applied to ‘approaches’ and ‘learning’, are we not left with what Webb (1997a,
1997b) suggests is simply another form of valorisation of the Western Enlightenment
tradition that adds very little that is new to higher education? Has the model not
effectively over-simplified and clarified the job of teachers as being the production of
a deep learning approach in students? The requirement for developing a coherent
and consistent conceptualisation of deep and surface approaches to learning is thus
pressing. It is not enough that the model has succeeded in terms of its wide
acceptance. That is dangerous, for while it remains in its arguably underdeveloped
state, the products that flow from it are plausibly considered suspect. And while the
model appears to be so straightforwardly sensible in what it is suggesting for the
work of scholars and practitioners, it creates the illusion that there is no need to
worry about such inconsequential and picky things. But it is a chimera until, and
unless, the work is grounded in high-quality theorisation and research.
